Tragedy fallout: Let’s make sure new laws don’t just make this nightmare worse

These are edited excerpts from editorial writer Chris Reed’s Opinion blog. Readers are encouraged to respond to him at chris.reed@uniontrib.com

Crime policy in California has long been driven by political grandstanding, with a dearth of basic cost and risk-management analysis. So be wary of jumping on the bandwagon of new proposals in the wake of the horrific murder of Poway High senior Chelsea King, allegedly by John Albert Gardner III, already convicted in a 2000 sexual violence and abduction case.

Consider Jessica’s Law, the 2006 ballot measure banning convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. It may seem simple common sense. But media reports say the law is not working well to deter sexual violence because restricting where sex offenders sleep doesn’t restrict where they can go while awake.

In fact, voluminous research suggests such laws are actually likely to make the problem worse. No one who reads “When Evidence Is Ignored: Residential Restrictions For Sex Offenders” will think highly of the politicians and district attorneys (among them Bonnie Dumanis) who touted Jessica’s Law so avidly. The study – co-authored by Richard Tewskbury, a University of Louisville professor who edits the journal Justice Quarterly and is an expert on sex offender policy – shreds the pols’ and DAs’ arguments.

“Residence restrictions, which lead to instability, transience and hopelessness, contradict decades of criminological research identifying factors associated with successful offender reintegration. Sex offenders and other offenders with positive support systems are less likely to reoffend and violate probation than those who lack support. Stable employment and relationships make it less likely that offenders re-entering the community will resume a life of crime.

“Conversely, lifestyle instability and negative moods are associated with increased sexual recidivism. ... [Reducing recidivism] is facilitated by reinforcing the offender’s identity as a conforming and invested citizen, not by preventing the ability to meet basic needs,” Tewksbury and Jill Levenson conclude.

Some will dismiss this as academic mumbo-jumbo. Some may like the idea these laws make offenders’ lives much more difficult.

But, remember, the paramount public-policy goal here is reducing sex crimes. If we want to do so while getting the most bang for our anti-crime buck – and not creating a bogus sense of security with deeply flawed laws – we should take such research seriously.

Instead, I fear we’ll see more grandstanding – because no news event more lends itself to grandstanding than appalling crimes.

The state auditor and the DA who tolerate theft

A state investigator once told me school districts up and down California routinely lie about how many children came to class so they could maximize their state funding, which is based on average daily attendance. Why is this tolerated? It’s seen as a “victimless crime,” the investigator told me.

So much for taxpayers.

Now I’ve turned up another egregious case of official tolerance for taxpayer abuse. In winter 2005-06, $23 million worth of TV ads touting “preschool for all” appeared at the same time “preschool for all” initiative petitions were circulated. The ads were paid for by the First 5 state agency. It was created by a 1998 ballot measure orchestrated by Rob Reiner, who was also overseeing signature gathering for the preschool measure. The ads ended when the measure qualified and the three consultants who were paid $206,000 in public money to run the TV campaign immediately went to work for the proposition campaign.